Immigration Protests.. Why Dont They Just..

[Lee]

Send in some INS officers to check everyones legal status?

I mean, seriously, all those illegal immigrants in one place protesting, that would be an INS officers wet dream you would have though $0.02

Regards,

Lee

[maxpower]

Will a big riot, people getting hurt, and where would they put all of them? I do think something has to be done, but they can not do that, first we need to secure the border then figure out what we are going to do with the illegals we have now.

[CorbinFisher_BD]

I'm quite sure that would be a violation of the protestors' constitutional right to free speech and freedom of assembly.

It's not only illegal immigrants protesting. There are legal immigrants protesting, citizens protesting, and resident aliens protesting.

The federal government can not question, search or demand identification from people simply because they've assembled to protest.

In theory, they could go about busting illegal after illegal but once they searched and demanded ID from one single legal resident/citizen out of suspicion solely based upon their having assembled to protest - as the Constitution guarantees them the right to do - they have violated that individual's rights.

By threatening to or even preparing to and suggesting that they would check the legal status of those protesting, the federal government is essentially intimidating out of free assembly and speech every single person gathering there.

So, unless the INS wants a massive civil rights lawsuit on their hands, they best just let the folk protest.

[MWCren]

I applaud those that are marching, and what they represent. The right wing whack jobs that think they can deport 11 million people will hopefully get the message.

Those that are here, legally or not, deserve to be treated with human decency. I don't endorse illegal immigration, but you can't ignore it for years and then suddenly decide to be a hardass about it.

We are a nation of immigrants, to paint all immigrants with a wide brush of "second class citizens" should be met with mass protests!

[gaybucks_chip]

In theory, they could go about busting illegal after illegal but once they searched and demanded ID from one single legal resident/citizen out of suspicion solely based upon their having assembled to protest - as the Constitution guarantees them the right to do - they have violated that individual's rights.

Without intending to hijack the thread, under the a similar theory to what you describe, I've always wondered why the Feds are allowed to post people on I-5 50 miles north of San Diego as an "immigration checkpoint" for drivers headed northbound. Near as I can tell, the deal is you slow down, the Feds look in your car, and if you don't look Mexican, they let you pass. And if you do, they stop and ask you for ID and so forth. Seems to me that's unconstitutional, since they're targeting people based on appearance instead of any legitimate reason to think the person might be a non-citizen. Anybody from southern california (or elsewhere) know how they get away with this?

[Xstr8guy]

Hell, INS doesn't deport mexicans anymore. 1/4 mile from my home is a corner where the illegals gather every morning looking for day labor. Never ONCE in 6 years has INS stopped to check for green cards.

And since when are illegals covered under our constitution?

[MWCren]

And since when are illegals covered under our constitution?

If they're in the US, they're covered by our constitution. Any prosecution would have to take place in the US justice system, and that system is governed by the constitution.

But you're describing exactly what I was talking about. How can you just turn a blind eye to a problem for years and years, and then suddenly become a hardass. Its just wrong. Construction, Agriculture and Tourism are powerful in Washington, they'll fight to keep their work force cheap.

I'm waiting for some of the bloggers to find the the dirt on congressmen and senators that have illegals as domestic help. That will show the total hypocracy of their "get tough" rhetoric.

[Lee]

If they're in the US, they're covered by our constitution.

Actually, they arent.

I wasnt covered by the constitution until i became a legal citizen, thats how my immigration attorney explained it to me.

Regards,

Lee

[chadknowslaw]

Hell, INS doesn't deport mexicans anymore. 1/4 mile from my home is a corner where the illegals gather every morning looking for day labor. Never ONCE in 6 years has INS stopped to check for green cards.

And since when are illegals covered under our constitution?

All persons within the physical boundaries of the US and its territories do have basic constitutional rights. The right to be free from searches and seizures, contained in the 4th amendment, refers to "the people" and "persons" without regard for citizenship. The 5th amendment which protects us from being charged with a crime without indictment, also applies to "persons" and applies to all people. Thus, government agents do not have the right to arbitrarily search people and cannot detain someone without charging them with a crime. Luckily this applies to all people or otherwise we would have to carry passports and wear stars on our shirts to identify us. Can you imagine the police having the power to stop and search you because you looked like you might be a non-citizen? And how do you tell? Surely the stereotype fits sometimes but there are people in this country from Great Britain that are illegal [not you Lee, but there are some]. There are some legal immigrants that look like they just dropped off the back of a truck and you would swear they are illegal but were born here or naturalized legally. So not all illegals "look" illegal and not all legals "look" legal. And the police do not have the right to stop and request identification without suspicion of a crime. Some constitutional rights DO apply to all people.

However, not all rights apply to all people. The first half of the 14th amendment does NOT apply to all persons because it defines "citizens" as "all persons born or naturalized in the United States". That amendment prevents the government from making a law diminishing the rights [the amendment uses "privileges and immunities"] of any "citizen" . The second part of the 14th Amendment says that no State "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. So the first half applies to citizens and the second half applies to all people. They could have used "citizen" but they used "person"
Those little subtle differences DO make a difference.

[chadknowslaw]

I forgot a point:

There is a difference between being "within the boundaries of the United States" which applies to my essay above and then there is "crossing the boundaries" where the constitution does NOT apply. At border crossings, you basically have no rights, regardless of citizenship. You can be questioned, searched, and detained for just about any reason. You do not have the right to consult with an attorney. You are considered to have given up those rights by voluntarily attempting to enter into the United States. Even a US citizen, 100th generation-family-on-the-mayflower does not have rights at a border crossing or border checkpoint, which may be a few miles within the border. So be polite, be a good boy, be a fucking kiss ass because they can fuck with you just because they dont like the looks of you at the border. Kicking and screaming and crying about rights and lawyers only pisses them off and then they get out the body cavity search tools.

Once safely inside the border, the constitution then applies.


Another place you have almost no rights is at airport security. You are voluntarily getting on that plane and using that public airport and using public airspace, and you are presumed to have waived your 4th Amendment rights to search. Whining, crying, demanding rights and demanding lawyers and lawsuits at an airport only means you will miss your flight.

[CorbinFisher_BD]

Without intending to hijack the thread, under the a similar theory to what you describe, I've always wondered why the Feds are allowed to post people on I-5 50 miles north of San Diego as an "immigration checkpoint" for drivers headed northbound. Near as I can tell, the deal is you slow down, the Feds look in your car, and if you don't look Mexican, they let you pass. And if you do, they stop and ask you for ID and so forth. Seems to me that's unconstitutional, since they're targeting people based on appearance instead of any legitimate reason to think the person might be a non-citizen. Anybody from southern california (or elsewhere) know how they get away with this?

Yeah I know what you're talking about. I think that the border patrol there does some CYOA with the manner in which they stop and search folk. I've pulled up to that San Onofre check point and seen a car next to me full of white as rice yuppy types get pointed over to the search area, and seen pickup trucks full of Hispanics about which I've thought "Oh... they're gonna get pulled aside" get waved through without so much as a second glance.

So I think they intentionally go about making it a point to be able to say they don't stop people based upon race alone so as to give any searches they do conduct more weight.

[CorbinFisher_BD]

And as far as illegals being covered under the constitution, Chad covered it all but I also want to point out that besides rights to due process and what not, checking for ID at a protest is about more than just that.

You can not assume that everyone engaged in a protest rally is an illegal. There are all manner of groups involved in these protests, from Hispanic organizations to the Roman Catholic Church, unions, and on and on and on. There are immigrants rights groups covering all manner of ethnicities as well - Hispanics are the most prominent, but Asian rights groups, African, and even European are all involved (somewhere around 5-6 percent of all illegal immigrants in the United States are European or Canadian). There are certainly a very substantial number of legal immigrants, citizens, and residents also involved in the protests.

So if you are a citizen and choose to involve yourself in this protest, for example, and that puts you at risk of being searched, seized, stopped and questioned by federal law enforcement officers, I'd imagine you have a very good civil rights/constitutional rights violation case against the gov't on your hands.

You were exercising your right to freedom of speech and assembly and for that reason alone, officers questioned you. Regardless of whether they stopped and questioned 1,000 actual illegal immigrants before reaching you, the first citizen, it was still unfair for them to assume that you were in the country illegally simply for having involved yourself in this protest and rightfully assembling and exercising your free speech. Their search and questioning of you only occurred because you were exercising your constitutional rights.

And that would be wrong. Very wrong.

What next? Stopping and questioning everyone at an anti-war rally under suspicion they are terrorists or terrorist sympathizers? Questioning everyone at an anti-tax rally under the suspicion they've all cheated on their taxes? If you're at an anti-death penalty rally can the government assume you've committed a capital crime at some point and are only out to save your own ass in case you're busted for it?

You might say I'm using a slippery slope argument here but really, our constitution was written and the judiciary enforces it with the slippery slope in mind.

If the government is going to act against you for exercising your constitutional rights, they've just violated them.

[chadknowslaw]

I've pulled up to that San Onofre check point and seen a car next to me full of white as rice yuppy types get pointed over to the search area, and seen pickup trucks full of Hispanics about which I've thought "Oh... they're gonna get pulled aside" get waved through without so much as a second glance.

So I think they intentionally go about making it a point to be able to say they don't stop people based upon race alone so as to give any searches they do conduct more weight.

Hmm, white as rice yuppy types? Coming from Mexico??

Any chance those boys had a few recreational pharmaceuticals in the car??

Border patrols can be looking for contraband too, not just illegal immigrants. And young white frat boys are often dumb enough to bring some back.

[CorbinFisher_BD]

Hmm, white as rice yuppy types? Coming from Mexico??

Any chance those boys had a few recreational pharmaceuticals in the car??

Border patrols can be looking for contraband too, not just illegal immigrants. And young white frat boys are often dumb enough to bring some back.

Funny you mention that, because at that border checkpoint they make it a point to state they are strictly, solely there to enforce immigration law.

I was told this by one of the officers when I was driving from San Diego to Los Angeles one night. For about 15 miles leading up to the checkpoint, I found myself behind a clearly intoxicated driver. He was swerving around lanes, speeding up to ungodly speeds then slowing down to a crawl, swerving some more, and really all over the highway.

I stayed behind him and called the police and CHP dispatched a unit, but as we got to the border patrol checkpoint the officer waved the drunk guy through. When I pulled up behind, I told the officer the guy he'd just waved through must have been totally wasted and if he wanted to call anyone about it, and he told me "That's not our business. We're only here for customs and immigration. You'll have to call CHP or local law enforcement."

I think for their checkpoint to be several dozens of miles safely inside the US border, they have to very strictly adhere to their stated mission - immigration enforcement. Observing the commission of a crime would be another thing (if you pulled up smoking a phatty or doing a line off your dashboard or had a dead hooker strapped to the hood) but without observing the crime itself, they're only there for immigration.

[desslock]

Hmm, white as rice yuppy types? Coming from Mexico??
Any chance those boys had a few recreational pharmaceuticals in the car??
Border patrols can be looking for contraband too, not just illegal immigrants. And young white frat boys are often dumb enough to bring some back.

If you drive to Laredo on IH-35 in Texas, or up from Eagle Pass, which is another Texas border town - the INS maintains those same checkpoints. For my Mexico border trips, they alwaye make me stop, and they ask if you are a US citizen. To answer Boyfunk/Chip's question, I would suspect that because the INS is stopping every vehicle, they are not conducting an "arbitrary search" that would potentially violate your 4th amendment rights. Similar to getting on a plane.... the treatment is uniform.

I've visted Nuevo Laredo several times with my friend TexMexChulo (a beneficiary of the 1986 Reagan amnesty). It's funny, walking around that main street those street guys are all over me like flies. They don't give him the time of day. There will be a young guy standing on the sidewalk, and as you pass he says audibly into the air: "Need any scripts?"

Or you'll hear someone speak the letter x.

I will buy some penicillin from the pharmacias. It's sold over the counter there. Don't forget your allowed one bottle of duty free booze. Carrying illegl drugs over is not a good idea. Although I'll admit to looking for, but never finding, Cuban cigars.

Today Nuevo Laredo is under military martial law and literally an open battlefield where the drug cartels fight the police in the streets. Their mayors get assasinated, like it's Iraq.

If you want Mexicans to stop coming to America for a better life, I suggest giving some serious thought to the effects of the US drug laws. Texas is one of the states that has recently made buying sudafed over the counter more difficult - in order to keep people from purchasing big quantities for meth labs.

So where does all the tina in Texas come from now? Mexico of course! Many people on GWW have discussed the problems they've seen with gays and tina.... but one ramification of drug criminalization is seen in Mexico and other Latin American countries. If you dislike so many people coming to America, than you should have a vested interest in making the socities of our neighboring countries better.

Steve